OK, I agree, the French made an orderly transition to Napoleonic tyranny, and Russia deposed the Czar and set up as a socialist 'republic'. No anarchy there, for sure. Just lawful orderly stuff.

Are you an anarchist?

I can't understand anarchy except as either utopian dreaming or pure evil.

Do people really think anarchy is going to lead to people suddenly just living together in peace and happiness, and the lion Shall lie down with the lamb?Are they talking about the Kingdom of God?What do they think will happen when all government and administration and enforcement of law are removed? I know what happens, and it isn't good.

I can't understand anarchy except as either utopian dreaming or pure evil.

Do people really think anarchy is going to lead to people suddenly just living together in peace and happiness, and the lion Shall lie down with the lamb?Are they talking about the Kingdom of God?What do they think will happen when all government and administration and enforcement of law are removed? I know what happens, and it isn't good.

Anyways, I have no bloody idea what will happen under anarchy. I think the size of government should be decreased until it is easier to see what will happen if you remove the rest of it.On one hand, I find the "social contract" to be dirty BS, and government is mass aggression in any case. On the other hand, aggression that in the end has the intent to prevent aggression (e.g. forcing people to pay for a police force) may still be justified aggression, depending on if it is actually effective or not, which is again, easier to see when a police force and an army is all a government has.

I am not sure if there should be government or not, and thus I am a State Agnostic. It all depends on how effective law enforcement actually is, and we aren't sure about that.

Anyways, I have no bloody idea what will happen under anarchy. I think the size of government should be decreased until it is easier to see what will happen if you remove the rest of it.On one hand, I find the "social contract" to be dirty BS, and government is mass aggression in any case. On the other hand, aggression that in the end has the intent to prevent aggression (e.g. forcing people to pay for a police force) may still be justified aggression, depending on if it is actually effective or not, which is again, easier to see when a police force and an army is all a government has.

I am not sure if there should be government or not, and thus I am a State Agnostic. It all depends on how effective law enforcement actually is, and we aren't sure about that.

Thanks for your comments, here. I've sort of encapsulated my views on the state into the following:

States might be justified on the grounds of preventing a return to the state of nature, arguments from consequences. In short, we need the state because we need the state. The "social contract" doesn't exist and would not be upheld as a legitimate if it were referenced to any other legal contract standard. Because the state can perhaps only be justified on pragmatic and not ethical grounds, if we do abide a state, we must recognize it offends any reasonable person's moral sensibilities and therefore must be severely limited.

Those thoughts kind of echo your own, so I would definitely say I'm with you in this discussion.

States might be justified on the grounds of preventing a return to the state of nature, arguments from consequences. In short, we need the state because we need the state. The "social contract" doesn't exist and would not be upheld as a legitimate if it were referenced to any other legal contract standard. Because the state can perhaps only be justified on pragmatic and not ethical grounds, if we do abide a state, we must recognize it offends any reasonable person's moral sensibilities and therefore must be severely limited.

Those thoughts kind of echo your own, so I would definitely say I'm with you in this discussion.

Thanks, I was interested in your own personal views as an anarchist.It seems you don't actually want a "return to the state of nature", and therefore believe we do perhaps need some government, on "pragmatic grounds", but that such government must be "severely limited"?

I'm with you on all that, that's why I like the original U.S. Constitution.

If you give an entity a monopoly on force, the only entity that can limit it is itself. It's parallel to handing over all the guns to the most violent person in the room and saying "just don't hurt us, mmk?" But sure, it's the minarchists who are the "pragmatic" ones.

If you give an entity a monopoly on force, the only entity that can limit it is itself. It's parallel to handing over all the guns to the most violent person in the room and saying "just don't hurt us, mmk?" But sure, it's the minarchists who are the "pragmatic" ones.

That's why we didn't give our government a monopoly of force. It's supposed to be the People's house, the States' chamber, and an independent Judiciary, and none of them are given police powers, which remain with the States, subject to the national governments duty to protect our Rights.Our Constitution is the only one in history that prevents the government, at any level, from having a monopoly of force.

That's why we didn't give our government a monopoly of force. It's supposed to be the People's house, the States' chamber, and an independent Judiciary, and none of them are given police powers, which remain with the States, subject to the national governments duty to protect our Rights.Our Constitution is the only one in history that prevents the government, at any level, from having a monopoly of force.

All governments assert a monopoly on force in its territorial area by definition. So the problem is you don't even know the definition of a government yet you advocate for it. Here's an explanation of what a government is: http://mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp

All governments assert a monopoly on force in its territorial area by definition. So the problem is you don't even know the definition of a government yet you advocate for it. Here's an explanation of what a government is: http://mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp

A government that splits power between a House of representative elected by the People at large, a Senate of representatives appointed by the States, and answerable to them for their continuation in office, an Executive given no power beyond approving or vetoing laws enacted by both houses, and otherwise merely executing, faithfully, the laws, with a Judiciary independent of both, with the limitations on the power to make war and the limitations on taxation, and the few enumerated powers our Constitution contains, has NO monopoly on power. It has limited power, controlled from a variety of directions.Well , it would if we had that lawful government.

If you can make some argument that anarchy serves the cause of liberty, I'll listen to it. But you can't, because it doesn't.